~ A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you … John 13:34

Providing perspective

In his memoir, The Seven Storey Mountain, Thomas Merton wrote that mainstream American and English culture has a built-in anti-Catholic bias that closed his mind, and many others, to the good things done by the Catholic Church. The tropes of this are common enough. It is usual to take an actual scandal and then imply that some entity called ‘the Vatican’ was responsible both for any scandal, and for any ‘cover up’. Struans has provided, via PBS, and excellent example of the genre. Anti-Catholicism has been called the last acceptable prejudice, and this is so because the deep-seated bias that comes from three hundred years of State-sponsored propaganda is so deep-rooted that most do not see it in themselves.

If, as some do, you choose to believe that the Vatican is all-powerful and controls everything, then you will fail to understand how much is devolved to diocesan level, and you fail to put the blame where it lies. For those willing to go through the level of detail needed to get a proper perspective on this, you can try the links here:

No doubt ‘secrets of the Vatican’ was not thought to be a catch-penny title, but it is in the fine tradition of Maria Monk and Jack Chick. Some serious and balanced journalism would be welcome, but Strauns has not provided us with access to it.

Of course, nothing like this has ever gone on in the Anglican Church, although if one reads the blog of the Rev. Peter Ould, a concerned Anglican, you might find otherwise; I am sure it was an oversight on Struans’ part not to mention Jersey. It is wearisome to have to wade through this stuff, but if we are to have some perspective, it is necessary.

For those who like this sort of thing, here are some figures and facts:

About chalcedon451

Post navigation

98 thoughts on “Providing perspective”

Where some Catholics spend their time looking in the kitchen garbage others outside the Church seem to love to walk in the sewage. This is the level of ‘religious discourse’ that to me does not allow anyone to come out smelling very good.

C’mon – it’s a PBS programme. Hardly junk TV. It’s legit to show it, even if I did expect some anguish from the RCs here. SF seems to be developing a taste for shooting messengers in particular, so it seems to me.
S.

You mistake weary resignation at the old junk journalism for anguish. Do read the links, read up on Jersey, and come back and give us an expose on something like Jersey, not done to death by the sensationalists. Not holding my breath.

Thank you NEO. The first non-knee-jerk comment received, so it seems to me.
Well, I didn’t know that PBS was thought to be low grade.
I have read some of the links provided, and I can sympathise with the sensationalist presentation of parts of the programme. As for the claims that most of the participants are somehow biased, well maybe that’s true – I don’t know. RC and Vatican politics seems to be – forgive the term – Byzantine.

C: Jersey: you’re deflecting the target again. It’s not child protection that the finger is being pointed at here, as I have countlessly made my views clear on this blog – rather is suspicion of the Vatican.

Bottom line: let us hope that Francis achieves what he wants to do, but at present the Vatican smells. Fishwrap? There’s no harm in a little cleaning of the stables with transparency – why not shine lights and let all see what is going on. If not now, then fine. Let us wait for Francis to clean up what he needs to clean. But then let the light shine. This RC stuff is not just off-putting to other Christians, but let’s remember that it is used by our collective enemies against us all.

I was unaware anyone had said there weren’t problems at the Vatican Struans? All politics one does not follow seem Byzantine; it is the easy excuse used by those ignorant of detail when challenged. I am not deflecting, I am pointing out that cover up are not confined to my Church. I am sure PBS did not mean to suggest they were, but it seemed useful to point it out for the sake of dear Bosco.

“There’s no harm in a little cleaning of the stables with transparency – why not shine lights and let all see what is going on. If not now, then fine. Let us wait for Francis to clean up what he needs to clean. But then let the light shine.”

OK Struans, what specific sorts of transparency would satisfy you completely?

The only reason this is targeted on the Roman Church is that, from the outside, anyway, it looks monolithic. Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, all the other sizable churches have (at one point or another) had all the same problems but they are so amorphous that they can’t be targeted this way without being obviously ridiculous.

Like so much anti-Catholic propaganda, it is not really anti-Catholic, it is rather anti-Christian.

Ben Franklin had the answer, we will hang together or, we will hang separately. Or if you prefer we could use the more recent, “First they came for the Catholics.”

Neo, this video was both anti-Catholic and anti-Christian. I await an answer from Struans on his specific requirements of transparency of the Vatican. It’ll be interesting if he really gives some serious thought before answering.

On that PBS thing, sure, who denied there were problems? I still wonder who told you that we say that the CC is pure and white? As an ideal, yes, but anything run by sinners is going to have sin as part of the deal.

I see some of the knee-jerk reactions to this video being shown seem to assume that I have shown it out of sensationalism. As I have commented elsewhere, this is not so. Please, friends, don’t shoot messengers!
S.

As my post says, so deep-seated is the prejudice those who have it deny they have it. Of course they didn’t call it ‘secrets of the Vatican’ be be sensational; if you believe that, I have some junk bonds you might like.

You’re picking on the title as if that’s the whole programme. Of course titles are designed to appeal to people to make them watch.
That doesn’t mean that the content can be dismissed by dismissing the title.
Some of the defensiveness on show here really does seem to be over the top.
The best way to disarm critics is to shine lights, not to shut doors – we know this from politics.
My main take away from that programme was the Italian culture at the heart of the Vatican – macho, defensive, almost narcissistic, one might say. Indeed, I believe that Francis has already used the narcissistic term in relation to the Roman Curia.
S.

I must say, I don’t find anti-Italian prejudice any more attractive than anti-Catholic prejudice. Whenever I am tempted to such generalisation, I imagine what the reaction would be if I were using the word ‘black’ or ‘Jewish’. No one is being defensive, we are simply pointing out that this is pretty shoddy stuff; if you cannot see that, fair enough, but others who know more about PBS and some of the people interviewed can; discernment, don’t you know.

The Vatican, not surprisingly, has an Italian oriented culture, about which there are attributes that are unfortunate. Compare that with Brussels too. Part of this is what the Scots complain of as regards London.

Maybe if the Roman Curia became more like a travelling theatre company, moving from major see to major see, then that would be a way to address the issue. For those, like Anglicans and the Orthodox, whose churches are more aligned with cultures, the issue is of less importance.

Strauns, I watched the video with interest as I had missed it the night it was shown. So I do thank you for posting it. It does disappoint me, however, that you chose to title your blog post “A Little Video” which smacks of condescension and cynicism, does it not? Also, could it be that we Catholics are far from having a “knee jerk” reaction to revolting news we’ve been aware of and endeavoring to understand for lo, these many years? It has all been said before. Therefore, I do not consider you a “messenger” but instead a critic of the Church with a vested interest in the contents of this program. I don’t refute the contents of the program, but it isn’t the whole story, as those of us who love the Church only know too well.

Well, I couldn’t think of a better title at the time. Is not ‘A Little Video’ indicative of gentleness? I don’t think that I meant to be condescending, but rather was conscious of the blowback from RCs – which I now see is in full flow.
I am a critic of your church, yes – but I don’t see that I have a ‘vested interest’, whatever that is supposed to mean. I don’t benefit personally from the making or showing of the video at all.
The point is, as a part of my ongoing discussions with C and others, that I have made the point constantly that the Vaticans claims to be competent to issue infallible teaching are not credible.
Did I picture the video as indicative of the whole of your church? Of course not.
Knee-jerk is a fine term in the circumstances: I have been depicted, so it seems to me, as wanting to highlight in a sensationalist and condescending manner the child abuse issues of Rome. Not so, I have questions about Rome’s claims, and so do others, clearly: both within your church and outside of it.
S.

By “vested interest” I meant (I think clearly) that you hope to bolster your criticism of the church’s claim of infallibility on the teaching of faith and morals by exposing immorality and corruption among individuals at the Vatican. Power corrupts. There is nothing new there.

Yes. Indeed. You make the point well. Power corrupts. Is there something wrong with supplying material to support one’s position?
This TV programme came out last week – is it not legitimate to show it? I didn’t know that it had been shown until less than 24 hours ago. I didn’t know that PBS is thought to be low grade. I have constantly made the point on this blog that I don’t point fingers at Rome over the child abuse stuff. It is the Vatican that I have questions about: their claims to be competent to teach infallibly do not seem to measure up to their competence in the real world.
Teaching: is that written documents, or role models – or both? A question for you.
S.

Strauns, I have not criticized you or the video for highlighting the tragedy of child sex abuse in the Church and you have mentioned that in each comment you have made to me today. I merely point out that objections to the video are that it may just possibly be biased. As to your question, it perplexes me a bit. I don’t know that I could name any role model in or out of the Church who I can rely on 100%, other than Jesus Christ of course.

‘As to your question, it perplexes me a bit. I don’t know that I could name any role model in or out of the Church who I can rely on 100%, other than Jesus Christ of course.’ Well said!

I too am a little perplexed at the argument that because some in the Church have behaved terribly, this somehow invalidates the claim to guard and teach certain truths of the Faith infallibly. In fact, that the Church has managed to do just that amidst all the trials and scandals she has experienced over the course of two millennia is, for me, a good indicator that those claims are valid and the Holy Spirit is indeed working within the Church to preserve and lead into all truth.

I wonder if the problem is, in part, caused by misunderstanding of “in persona Christi”, when personal perfection is expected of the Catholic clergy. I also feel that there is a misunderstanding in general of the Catholic belief in the supreme power of the Holy Spirit. We don’t become, or stay, Catholic because of the individual members of the clergy, including the Pope. We become, or stay, Catholic because of the love and power of God’s Holy Spirit moving within the Church. Of course I will quickly add that I believe God’s Spirit moves among believers outside the Church as well, I know many believing Christians of the Protestant persuasion and I never mean to be exclusive in my statements.

Yes, I think you have hit on something here – there is an expectation that for the Church to be able to pronounce infallibly on certain things, those making the pronouncements (or any involved in the magisterial process) must be living holy lives. This argument has a bit of a Donatist feel to it.

Whereas the truth of the matter is, as you say, that the Holy Spirit is the one who does the work. He works through earthen vessels yes, but he did so in (amongst other things) inspiring the words of Scripture too. Christ founded a Church so that His saving work could be continued throughout the ages, and the truths about His person and will known without error. He did not guarantee that the people preserving those truths would be without sin.

Say, good sister Joan, dont let good brother Quiav hear you say non catholics are gods peiople. Youre religion says no non catholics will goto heaven. Thats funny. i didnt know one has to bow befor graven images to get to heaven. Id swear that bowing to graven images was a sure ticket to hell.

MK: I can understand the defence of yours about ‘if the church has done this through all of what has happened the that’s a good indicator’. However, that’s a good defence if one believes that what your church teaches is fully true. For those, like myself, who think otherwise, the argument fails. So it comes back to looking at whether those in the Vatican – the magisterium – and I am supposing that the types of people have been more or less similar through the ages – are able to have the capacity to pronounce on truth in a definitive manner. It just doesn’t seem credible to me at all – and I am baffled why others do not seem to see this point. Or do they?

Joan: I don’t think the issue is because of ‘in personal Christi’, and I hear you on the Spirit and hold very similar views myself. It is rather because RCs claim, so I understand, that their church has the capacity not to err. This is the root, as I see it. Where does that come from though? How is it to be justified?

Yes, I see what you mean – obviously this argument is only a good defence if you can see that the Church has indeed preserved the deposit of faith and taught truth infallibly amidst all these trials. Fair enough.

As to your reasoning why you cannot accept that it has done, I too am baffled by the idea that people within the Church, due to their sinful lives, cannot possibly have done so. This seems to me to place the responsibility of teaching such truth on man alone. The point is that the Holy Spirit works to preserve Truth in the Church DESPITE human failings. Of course if we had to rely on the character of human beings alone, the argument would weaken. But we have not been left to sort it out for ourselves.

However, the tradition of the church catholic (as opposed to that part led by the bishop of Rome) is that it is episcopal conciliar government that has the highest teaching authority. Of course, I do not expect you to agree with that, but nevertheless it is a part of church tradition that Rome seems to have jettisoned.

Even Augustine, often hailed as by far the most important theologian in the western church, who was positively inclined towards Rome when a bishop in Africa, gave no more credence to Rome’s bishops claims to universal primacy than did his African predecessor Cyprian in Carthage 200 years earlier. In Augustine’s City of God, there is no role for the pope, and he did not believe that Rome could legitimately claim supremacy or primacy of jurisdiction over other churches. Augustine does not have the foundation of the church resting on the person of Peter, and certainly not on Peter’s successors, but on Christ and belief in Christ. These points, were – so I am told – openly discussed and defended by a certain Joseph Razinger in his 1953 doctoral dissertation on Augustine. Augustine placed the highest authority of the church in the same place as the rest of the catholic church in the east – in ecumenical council of all bishops, and not even to such a council did Augustine ascribe the ability to pronounce infallible teaching.

I think a problem here may be that you seem to think that papal infallibility does away with the authority of ecumenical councils – this is not the case. In fact, I posted on the topic of papal infallibility just yesterday, and touched on this very issue – if you want to have a look, my post includes relevant sections of the Catechism that deal with this:

As for Saint Augustine, I know that the City of God is a very important work, but it is by far and away not the only thing he wrote. Just because a particular Father does not mention (e.g.) papal primacy in everything that he has written, does not mean that he doesn’t support it; nor, might I add, does a doctrine require unanimous support from every Church Father for it to be accepted – if that were the case, nothing would have ever become defined! This is perhaps something to think about with regard to your contention that collegiate or conciliar government alone is sufficient to establish doctrine – stalemates abound.

Back to Augustine though, I took the liberty of picking out a couple of quotes wherein he does indeed recognise the primacy of the pope and its importance for the Church’s life:

“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5 [A.D. 397]).

“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

And from Saint Cyprian, whom you claim gave no credence to Rome’s claims to universal primacy:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

I think these are fairly clear indications of the feelings of the two respective saints. Regarding what Saint Augustine says in the City of God, I will take your word for it for now, but would you be so kind as to cite the relevant passages so that I may look them up for myself? As you know, context is everything, and I would like to see in what context he was saying these things, what emphases were made, etc.

One final point though – even if we were to shift final authority from the pope to ecumenical councils, this doesn’t do away with the issue of ecclesiastical claims to infallibility does it? The Orthodox operate on a conciliar model, and also claim that the Church is infallible. Your main issue seems to be whether any church could claim infallibility at all, and your negation of such claims, despite the fact that you acknowledge the Spirit’s work over and against human failings, seems to be based upon the fact that the sinful behaviour of clergy disallows them from being able to preserve and pronounce infallible teaching.

I missed this reply of yours earlier, so let me respond now. Briefly, or not so briefly, once again🙂

1. Papal infallibility. I’ve read your post and bar a couple of minor nuances, there’s nothing there that’s new to me. True ecumenical councils are not what Rome calls ecumenical councils, as they will include bishops who don’t report to Rome too.

2. Augustine and Pope Siricius. A letter doesn’t have the same weight as his magnum opus of City of God. Pope, as a title then, doesn’t have the same meaning at all to what is claimed for that title now, so there’s no equivalence. It’s Pope Leo I which might have a claim to the first use of the title of pope in the manner in which it is today meant. Leo forged the classic synthesis of the idea of Roman primacy. Contrary to the Biblical text, Leo interpreted the Petrine passages in a strictly legal sense as a fullness of power given to St. Peter and thus to bishops of Rome. Leo’s idea of the bishops of Rome being the successors to St. Peter was based on a forged letter purportedly sent by Pope Clement to St. James, brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem. According to this epistle, Peter, in a final testamentary disposition, had appointed Clement to be his sole legitimate successor. Using Roman Laws of hereditary succession, Leo defined the legal status of Peter’s successor more precisely. Leo also claimed the title Pontifex Maximus, which had previously been discarded by the Byzantine emperors – a hint of Erastianism there, don’t you think? Cherry picking quoted from documents that have survived Roman hegemony doesn’t really beat the facts, my friend.

3. Ecumenical councils and infallibility: I do not discount the possibility that such a council can be infallible, or else however could the Christian hope of a perfected universal church of humanity be achieved. However, as the previous ecumenical councils have shown, unity is not always achieved easily – and when there’s been a fist fight amongst bishops in a council, it would be difficult to claim credibly that there have been decisions reached infallibly with impeccable discernment, rather than by ugly coercion. The Way of Christ is hard, is it not? Rome seems to have assumed a wide road for itself, and we can see where that road has let its brethren.

1. Fair enough, but if true ecumenical councils are not what the Church calls them, then there hasn’t been any new doctrine (and hence no development) established since the eighth century. The Orthodox, due to their rejection of Rome’s claims, cannot (according to them) convene an ecumenical council because the Pope/Bishop of Rome must be included.
2. I presume you’ve heard of development of doctrine. That Leo (with his Tome, amongst other things) gave greater emphasis to the primacy of Rome does not undo the fact that previous to his papacy that very primacy was widely recognised. And it is significant that when he exercised his papal authority at Chalcedon it was not questioned – it helped to settle the matter (‘Peter has spoken through Leo’). So, yes the term ‘pope’ had a different meaning in earlier centuries to what it did in Leo’s time, but the primacy of the office was not in question, and the development of the term merely mirrors the development of the significance of that office. And no, I don’t think using Byzantine imperial terminology do describe the papal office is Erastian at all – I am surprised that you do! Surely you see the difference between using secular language and the Church actually receiving its authority from the state (e.g.; Elizabethan Settlements, Privy Councils and all that)? As for this forged letter, I’m afraid I can’t find any record of this anywhere – could you give me a source? Not saying it doesn’t exist, I just can’t find it. Apart from anything else though, what makes me suspicious about your argument is that a letter claiming Peter appointed Clement as his successor would directly contradict the earlier evidence (recorded by St. Irenaeus) that Linus and Anacletus succeeded Peter and preceded Clement. Surely Leo et al would have known this…? Plus there’s that awkward matter of Matthew 16! As you say, you can’t beat the facts🙂 As for cherrypicking Roman hegemony, perhaps you’d like a more comprehensive patristic witness to the primacy of Peter’s successors. I know they’re from a Catholic website, but you can always double-check the sources: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i and http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii
3. ‘It would be difficult to claim credibly that there have been decisions reached infallibly with impeccable discernment, rather than by ugly coercion’ – sometimes this has been the case, yes. But either you believe God can work through the ugly processes of flawed men to bring about a knowledge of His truth or not. The Way of Christ is hard yes, and I have to say I am amazed that you claim Rome has assumed a wide road for itself, especially coming from an Anglican! I am sorry but, whilst it is true that there is laxity in all churches, including the Catholic Church, I find it amazing that you can see the path laid out for Catholics as being in any way broad or easy. That many may fall from grace is true, but at least they know what they’re falling from – it’s not just anything goes, far from it.

MK: Again, let me take a little time to respond to you as you have clearly spent some time to write at length. I want to cut the conversation after this though, but I don’t want to appear to be so rude as to dismiss the time and thinking that goes into writing at length. So, some responses:
1. The Eastern Catholics (i.e. what is now called the Eastern Orthodox) convened most of the major ecumenical councils anyway, not the bishops of Rome. There’s no reason why anyone cannot try to convene a council – whether its valid or not is in its acceptance and how many people pitch up. Of course, any honourable convening of a council would invite the bishop of Rome – and, I would like to think, all of his bishops too. Of course, no doubt people would complain about Anglican bishops and all the rest of it, but I don’t want to get into that now.
2. Chalcedon, Peter, Leo, etc..: Leo’s development of the papacy carried no weight in the more important part of the then church, with the Eastern Catholics. Leo was set back at Chalcedon in 451 – his demand that his legates should preside over the Council was refused outright. In the face of this explicit prohibition, Leo’s tome – an official letter setting forth the Roman position on the union of divine and human natures in the one person of Christ in terms reminiscent of Augustine – was first examined by the Council to determine whether or not its teaching corresponded to orthodox faith. The face that the Council, after this scrutiny, enthusiastically approved Leo’s formulations with the acclamation so triumphantly cited by you and others must not be overrated. This acclamation was not a blanket acknowledgement that the pope is ‘a priori’ – i.e. always and everywhere and of his nature, the (infallible) mouthpiece of Peter – instead it applied only to this particular case at hand and then only ‘a posteriori’, namely after the Council’s own examination of the matter had confirmed it. Similarly, the Council requesting Leo to confirm its decisions was out of politeness to ask the bishop of Rome and in no way ought to be seen that there would be no binding force on the Eastern Catholics if the pope had not agreed.
3. The way of Rome is to make it easy to get to what it claims is Truth – so, yes, I stand by that claim. If you find it difficult coming from an Anglican, then so be it. I suspect that you may have been a traditionalist Anglo-Catholic, in which case I hope you are happier where you are now than you were with us. I don’t make the claim that to try to live by the teachings of Rome is easy – heaven forbid such a claim – of course not. Rather that Rome has made it easy for itself to say what is True and what is not, and frankly I suspect it’s difficult to reform the whole system as its all so self-reinforcing. Let us hope Francis at least gets somewhere.

Finally, sources: forged letters and City of God. I don’t have the books to hand, but they do exist. Maybe later then.

Again, no problems re wanting to finalise all this – I agree completely.

1. There is indeed no reason why anyone can convene a council, and yes, as you say, whether it is valid or not is the point. What I was saying is that the Eastern Orthodox recognise that any council they convene without the pope will not be valid, and that is why they haven’t convened any since 787 AD.
2. It is not a surprise that some of the Eastern bishops didn’t like some of Leo’s consolidation of papal jurisdiction, but this didn’t stop them from recognising his primacy and authority, to the point that a letter was sent to Leo after the council to secure his adhesion to it. And that the council read the Tome before accepting it is hardly suprising either – just because a pope writes a doctrinal treatise, it is not accepted without question simply because he is the pope! But the consideration given to it was due to the weight of authority the see of Rome carried. The ‘asking the pope to ratify decisions out of politeness’ argument is interesting – it seems that popes were asked to intervene and exercise their authority ‘out of politeness’ quite a lot in the early Church. As for the fact that the acclamation was an a posteriori one based on the contents of the Tome, not Leo’s office, I don’t see any justification for this in the accounts of Chalcedon itself, and to be honest, it seems rather a strange and over the top thing to say just because a bishop had written something doctrinally sound. As an aside, I would not use this instance to support papal infallibility myself; just papal primacy and authority.
3. Okay, I see what you mean now. The difficulty of hearing such a claim from an Anglican was due to this misunderstanding – apologies. Personally I think that God would want to make it easy for us to know Him and His will, and am glad that He has provided such means. I am still slightly bemused by the claiming of Pope Francis as a revolutionary who is going to overturn centuries of Catholic teaching, but who knows – maybe that Hans Kung book will be the thing that finally undoes Rome’s claims to infallibility🙂 I am sure Pope Francis will ‘get somewhere’ in other respects, but given his commitment to the hermeneutic of continuity, I don’t think it will be in the way that you would want.

As for The City of God – I have a copy, so will just have to have an indexing session at some point. The forged letter I will just look harder (and again, I wasn’t claiming that it didn’t exist, just that my searches weren’t bringing back much – but then I didn’t search for particularly long). Have a good Lent – I hope whatever you do during brings you closer to Our Lord. Bye for now.

Per your reply to Joan: “I have questions about: their claims to be competent to teach infallibly do not seem to measure up to their competence in the real world.”

Its not about competence, its about Divine Grace and only on specific teachings (faith and morals) and in specific circumstances (ex cathedra). You surely know that. Can an incompetent priest forgive sin in the sacrament of confession or confect the eucharist at a mass in the Anglican Church? Or is there a competency test?

You miss the point. It is not about the competency of particular individuals as individuals.

Rather your church claims for itself that under particular circumstances – yes, I am aware of those – it can teach infallibly. However, it has to exercise and make manifest that claim somehow, so it has to look in particular circumstances to a group of people. All humans are sinners, so with the most holy of men, their collective discernment of truth, whilst no doubt of extreme goodness, is surely not able to be infallible.

However, there is a problem here. If there is no hope for human perfection, then surely that is an admission that Christian hope is flawed. However, the tradition of the church is that it it is in full ecumenical council where ultimate teaching can be found. So, it is back to the role of conciliar vs. monarchical governance of the church.

I feel it is a matter of both and is not made (when an infallible issue is at hand) purely on logic and reason. I feel that the Holy Spirit, as promised, informs their intellect to assert the proper teaching. It can be over-ruled or ratified by the Pope alone. That is our protection if we have not discerned properly as a council. An infallible teaching does not have to state the ‘whole’ of a Truth as that may unfold over time. But it will not teach that which is untrue. Thereby, even bad Popes did not try to repeal infallible teaching or replace the Church’s teaching with a new teaching: they only further the teaching that was previously held. Some are not needed in this present day culture but the Church, like the U.S. Constitution preserves the history of its thinking by never removing the old for the new. We develop a Truth more fully or ignore it if it no longer applies.

“We develop a Truth more fully or ignore it if it no longer applies.”
Well, who cannot agree with this? It seems good.

However, the point is that your church seems to have taken upon itself the claim that it can infallibly define certain truths (and, yes, I am aware of the unfolding over time) which later turn out not to be true.

That is the problem. I hope at least that now we are focussed on the exact issue, rather than talking and explaining things to each other over and over again.

I cited the Chinese rites controversy as a definitive teaching of your church on matters of faith and morals which it has changed. So your church by its own teaching has shown that its claim to be able to issue true definitive teaching is flawed.

I don’t think we’re ever going to agree on this one – it is ultimately a question of the role of your pope and his primacy. One of power, or of honour. He has used power to pick his own panel of who he thinks takes part in ‘ecumenical councils’ and reserves the role for himself of ultimate arbiter.

It seems that all issues between us ultimately go back to the role of the bishop of Rome.

Think about it though: how does this play out? It plays out whereby your church reaches for defining truths, and wants to have the ability to get to truths where it can. Others are happy with much fewer defined truths, and say that we can only arrive at ultimate truth when all are able to live that truth. The way I claim that is the tradition for the church is a hard road indeed. Yes – it is Christ’s road – His Way.

The answer to the why we have more ‘truths’ than anyone else is that we have been answering the conundrums of theologians for far longer than anyone else: 2000 years now. Don’t you think we should have more in that time?

That’s a poor suggestion. Do you not think that the Orthodox have been answering for longer, or even just the same? Do you not think that we Anglicans have access to all of the Orthodox teachings, texts and thoughts, and the same for Rome (to the extent that none are being hidden from view)?
It’s not a quantitative matter, it is qualitative.
S.

So you think that the Orthodox were presented all the same questions and theological opinions that raged through the Church in the West and settled these arguments as Rome did? That is what is great about the Pope. He can stop the endless cycle of argument and issue an answer. I don’t think Orthodoxy has ever settled questions and I doubt the questions were ever brought to the Orthodox Church.

Struans, I know you said that I am shooting the messenger: I am not. I am more saddened and shocked that you have taken ‘religious dialogue’ to a place that most people avoid by lowering the bar to a place where throwing stones at one another and casting allegations back and forth serves as dialogue. I’m probably as low-brow as anyone but this was too low-brow even for me.

Well, I have apologised now in a separate post. So let’s be friends and forget about it all. You did deeply disappoint me in your apparent dismissal of some points of mine the other day. However, let’s move on.
I have learnt yet again, that there is more that divides us than a common language – all this polarisation in politics, religion and now the media that exists in the US. It’s a minefield of which I am not acquainted. I thought Britain was bad. However, maybe the UK is a pale shadow of how things are across the pond.
S.

Which points did I dismiss, my friend? Are you speaking of the areas where we agreed to disagree or something else?

Yes, this is a fouled up place. One must pick their media very carefully as to get a balanced report in the MSM is next to impossible these days. Everyone seems to have an agenda that they are pushing and unfortunately, if you are not old enough to have seen a balanced media in your life, you’ll buy into these agendas. Its us oldsters who will go out and look for the real story. Thank God for the internet: at least you have an opportunity to see the other side and decide what might be more logical.

Leaving the link aside – as I did respond to that – your question at the first seems to be that I am saying that the Teaching Church stands still. It is the Teaching of the Teaching Church that stands still or is added to infallibly; not the Church itself as the practice do regular get amended. We had about three liturgical changes to the Old Mass in rather quick order just before Vatican II. Procedures and synods and bishop’s councils are always in active interplay with their cultures and in social, religious and moral issues.

As far as how we grow in thought through new philosophies: that is a given. We take what is applicable from wherever we find it but do not adopt a single philosophy to speak for the Church.

The only other questions I see that I may not have answered would be: Where are we now? and Do we need to judge anyway?

I’m with you on the first. How does any culture rate itself in relation to past cultures or future ones. We see the growth of thought in some areas and a deterioration of faith and morals and in religion itself. Hard to know.

As to the second, I would say that we must always judge sin and not people. That should be a constant interplay that is taught for the benefit of the people who desire to live better lives and grow spiritually. So yes, I think we can judge our culture as being bankrupt in areas of concern and try to do something about it.

I am not misunderstanding in the manner you suggest in your first paragraph.
Re philosophies, I have recently learned of the approach you mention – another argument for me to store up my sleeve for when we address the philosophical foundations of Rome’s approach, the Orthodox approach and the Anglican approach – all are different in terms of their philosophical roots, which is why each other often doesn’t understand the other.
Thanks for the reply. Much appreciated.
S.

Struans posted on The Little Video, “The problem with all this, of course, is that it does tarnish this claim that the church of Rome reserves for itself the ability to claim infallible knowledge of the divine.”

Youre dog gonned rite good brother Struans. The CC claims its holy, apostolic, pure and white and universals and contains the deposit of faith where all men must subject themselfs to the pontiff at Rome for salvation. And priest parties.

Trying to be a man who pleases God<br>“Nothing is more certain, than that our manners, our civilization, and all the good things . . . in this European world of ours, depended for ages upon two principles: and were indeed the result of both combined; I mean the spirit of the gentleman, and the spirit of religion” (Burke)